1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the court shall dismiss the "Efra" of the first instance judgment as "Cfra" and the "Efra" of the fifth and third parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallels 4, 18, and 5, 13; and (b) the plaintiff's argument in the trial is identical to the ground of the first instance judgment, except for adding the following judgment to the corresponding part, thereby citing it as is in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant had D work for a long time in the position of “director”, and actually paid D a monthly amount of 2.80,000 won to D, and D used a position as a “field agent” at the Defendant’s electrical construction site and was acting for the Defendant with respect to electrical construction. Since D had justifiable grounds for believing D as the Defendant’s agent, the Defendant bears the responsibility by means of an expression agent under Article 125 of the Civil Act regarding D’s act. (ii) Even if it is not constituted an expression agent, the Defendant ratified D’s unauthorized representation around February 7, 2012, when the Defendant heard the horses of D and offered security to the Plaintiff.

B. 1) First of all, we examine whether the expression agency under Article 125 of the Civil Act is constituted. The expression agency under the indication of the granting of power of representation under Article 125 of the Civil Act is established when a person acts with a third party on behalf of the principal in performing a juristic act with a third party on behalf of the principal without any relationship with the nature of the basic legal relationship or the existence of the validity thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da31264, Aug. 21, 2001). However, as alleged by the Plaintiff, D uses the name of the Defendant’s “director of the Corporation”, and uses it as a “on-site agent,” even if it was directly used at the Defendant’s electrical construction site, such fact alone is sufficient to support the Defendant.